Two-storey self-build dwelling at Vacant land between 27 & 33 Watery Lane, Ulverston

What was proposed

The application sought permission for a two-storey self-build dwelling on vacant land between two existing homes.

“SUMMARY 1.1 The application site consists of a building plot between two two-storey semi- detached dwellings within a built-up area of Ulverston. The application site was granted planning permission for a dwelling in 2005 and foundations were dug; however, a Lawful Development Certificate determined in 2024 confirmed that a flood risk pre-commencement condition imposed on the original permission wasn’t discharged and, therefore, the 2005 planning permission wasn’t…”

Officer report

Earlier applications

A 2005 dwelling permission was not extant, while a mixed two- and three-storey proposal was refused in November 2025.

“RELEVANT SITE PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 SL/2005/0888: Detached dwelling- approved 10/10/2005 4.2 2024/1295/LDEX: Lawful Development Certificate (Existing) to establish that pre- commencement condition 4 (floor levels) attached to planning permission SL/2005/0888 doesn't have effect due to post permission changes to Flood Zone boundaries – refused 8/11/2024 4.3 2025/1068/FPA: Erection of detached self-build dwelling previously approved under planning permission S/2005/0888…”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended refusal because the dwelling’s scale and position would cause significant overbearing and overshadowing harm to the western neighbour.

“The current application seeks planning permission for a two-storey dwelling. The proposal would cause significant harm to residential amenity due to overbearance and overshadowing on the residential amenity of the adjacent dwelling to the west and its main amenity space.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent addressed the committee in support of the application and said the applicant considered the siting appropriate.

Members’ debate

Members considered the neighbour’s conservatory, the dwelling’s reduced height, its setback and whether the overbearing and overshadowing effects were significant.

“Members’ attention was drawn to a proposed floor plans and site plan and photographs of the site, highlighting the neighbouring properties and an aerial view of the site. It was noted that the key issues with the application that was refused in November 2025 remained, but that the applicant had reduced the eaves height, front elevation significantly.”

“The reasons provided by the proposer, following advice from officers were that they felt that there was limited impact of overbearing and overshadowing on the neighbour but not enough to cause significant harm, because of the limited height and the position of the proposed dwelling being set back from the boundary it was not felt that negative impact would be caused.”

Minutes

Why members disagreed

The members’ reasons were that the dwelling’s limited height and setback would limit overbearing and overshadowing impacts below significant harm.

“Members expressed differing opinions on the proposals, with some feeling that the scheme set out in the application would clearly cause harm to the neighbouring property and some feeling that although there will be some overshadowing and overbearing on the neighbouring property, it was not significant enough to warrant refusing the application.”

Minutes

The vote

A proposal to approve the application contrary to the officer recommendation was moved and seconded before the decision was made.

“A proposal to approve planning permission, contrary to the officer recommendations was moved and seconded by Councillors Irving and Hughes respectively.”

“The Lead Lawyer, Planning and Highways restated the proposal to grant planning permission contrary to officer recommendation for the reasons stated by the mover and seconder and noted that the application would be subject to conditions set by the planning officer.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was granted, with officers delegated to set conditions.

“RESOLVED, that planning permission be granted and that Planning Officers be delegated permission to form conditions set out below which the decision is subject to: -”

Minutes